|
How to limit code bloat from patterns? You want to read a connection string from your file, but you end up with two interfaces, two concrete implementations, one template, and one native driver dependency? If we make a plan and put our money and resources together, couldn't we just forbid patterns, and lock up Martin Fowler?
|
|
|
|
|
KISS - patterns are useful but not always practical.
Keep your friends close. Keep Kill your enemies closer.
The End
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe you will like Anti-Patterns better 
|
|
|
|
|
This is what I hate about patterns: because it worked in "Situation A", it's easy to assume it will work in "Situation B"; and with a bit of hammering on the sharp corners, it does. So it starts to be seen as a "universal solution" and forced to work for "Situation C", and D, and ... even when it patently is ridiculous because it works. Very shortly, it becomes a "software religion" and any criticism of it is tantamount to heresy in the eyes of the faithful. A bit like owning a new iPhone ...
This isn't specific to patterns, or even new: if you have a big enough hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
If you have a big enough hammer, everything IS a nail.
|
|
|
|
|
ventureaaron wrote: If you have a big enough hammer, everything IS a nail.
My new response in design meetings, from now on! Where would you like your case of beer shipped?
vuolsi così colà dove si puote
ciò che si vuole, e più non dimandare
--The answer to Minos and any question of "Why are we doing it this way?"
|
|
|
|
|
 Keep it. Sounds like you may need it for your design meetings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cue Michael Jackson.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
Don't add anything that doesn't add value; and no, the fact that a pattern exist does not mean it must be applied in every situation.
Any extra code adds complexity and hence costs. Keep it to a minimum.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Patterns were created as compensation for a language (Java) that cripples you from doing things intelligently. Then patterns were used to compensate for stupid programmers so they could at least write intelligent boiler plate code. But that mostly fails. Then patterns were glommed onto by the likes of Microsoft in their Enterprise.Patterns fiasco, and you know how dead and ancient that is.
So, here's the mantra for 2018: throw out your old patterns and simply do what you know is right. 
|
|
|
|
|
Switch to C++. The C++ community doesn't do patterns to any significant extent.
|
|
|
|
|
Why stop with Martin Fowler? Why not lock up the whole Gang of Four, in separate prisons, for the rest of their natural lives.
I use patterns when they are appropriate, but I've never spent much time deciding which pattern to apply to a given situation. This is not at all the same as avoidance of wheel reinvention. Whenever possible, I assemble new projects from existing tested library routines and modules. Some of these may happen to implement a pattern, but I'm not slavish about that. For example, I have several C# class libraries that contain classes that implement the Singleton pattern, but they are special cases that truly merit such treatment.
David A. Gray
Delivering Solutions for the Ages, One Problem at a Time
Interpreting the Fundamental Principle of Tabular Reporting
|
|
|
|
|
Tomaž Štih wrote: lock up Martin Fowler?
yes
|
|
|
|
|
I am sorry but patterns are extremely important. Everything must be a pattern.
For instance, if you do not use repository pattern, you are horrible at writing data access. While we are at it, as developer you make sure that your code can seamlessly work with at least MSSQL, MySQL, Oracle, MongoDB, that one little file as DB on the RaspberryPI device and of course flying broom. Never miss the flying broom.
I am not serious. Or am I?
"It is easy to decipher extraterrestrial signals after deciphering Javascript and VB6 themselves.", ISanti[ ^]
|
|
|
|
|
Around 1982 we obtained a very early C++ compiler (not yet released) that compiled to plain C, which could be used as input to any K&R C compiler to generate binary code. As senior students, we eagerly read this intermediate C code to see how subclasses and inheritance and abstract classes and initializers and whaterver other OO concept was implemented.
At summer time, I was an intern with a company making both computers and software for it, and I got insight in a fullscale, commercial OS, written in a low level language (more or less a set of macros on top of the assembly language) in the early 1970s. To my surprise I found lots of source code in the OS that very much resembled the C code created by the C++ compiler. Lots of OO concepts had been realized by hand coding in a near-assembly language. When I pointed this out to the OS developers, they gave me a blank stare: OO was a completely unknown concept to them. They had all the good reasons for coding it the way they did, using the same arguments as the OO guys, in a somewhat different vocabulary. So I learned that OO concepts came neither with C++, Simula or Smalltalk - they just formalized a language syntax for concepts that had been in use for years.
Patters are similar. I met them after a number of years as a software developer, and my reaction was "Yes? Sure that is good way of structuring the code; we have always done it that way..." Of course there were rule thumpers who where nitpicking some details that diverged from some academic description of a given pattern. In a couple of cases, the details could easily be adjusted to make those guys happy; it never changed the real pattern.
Just like the OS guys did OO programming without knowing it, lots of developers use code patterns "by instinct", without ever looking up its index in some academic dissertation. They use it without being tied on hands and feet to a set of academic absolutes, but adapt the basic principles to a real world production environment. Which is how it ought to be, in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Nice Story...
It reflects my own experience. After some years of Basic, Pascal, C Programming I started to read GOF and about patterns. I realized that I "found" a lot of them for myself while I was coding.
So code with no standard patterns seems not possible to me. You use them - even if you don't know... And there aren't that many you will use every day.
So for the developers in my team I have a simple rule: If you are aware of a pattern - Name the Code/variable/function etc. accordingly. It's great for communication between developers.
-> Don't: Here is my creator for the Storages... 
-> Do: Here is my factory for the repositories... 
|
|
|
|
|
My experience with both object oriented programming and design patterns mirrors yours, and probably nearly every one of our colleagues who started in the 1970's. Along those same lines, I was once asked to fix a program that had been written by a brand new graduate, so new that the ink wasn't dry on his Computer Science diploma. It was modularized, as was the fashion of the day, in the extreme. If even a single statement appeared in two or more places in the program, it was implemented as a function. After studying it for a few hours, I scrapped the entire program, and rewrote it from scratch. With a total expenditure of about two days, I had a completely rewritten, tested replacement for the program. While it was modular, it wasn't slavishly so; there were places here and there where the same statement appeared in two or more places. So what? In the grand scheme of things, that might have made toe object code a hundred bytes bigger, which didn't matter, even then, when we measured programs' memory consumption in kilobytes.
David A. Gray
Delivering Solutions for the Ages, One Problem at a Time
Interpreting the Fundamental Principle of Tabular Reporting
|
|
|
|
|
In my opinion, there are some who have danced around the concept of patterns and some who have missed it entirely. Patterns, be it concepts from the Gang of Four or from Martin Fowler, are by their very nature language agnostic. I saw mention of compensation for problems with Java and lots of focus on specific languages in the comments, but that wasn't ever the intent of Patterns. Patterns are there to make tasks that are repeated, code heavy and reusable to be easier and somewhat normalized, that is pretty much it.
I think the most important comment I saw mentioned KISS. That is the biggest key concept when dealing with Patterns to me. If you are building a basic application and adding hundreds of lines of code to use a Pattern when you need 5 lines, that isn't what a Pattern is meant to do. However, if you are building an application that is data heavy and needs lots of database interactions, there are many patterns that can make this easier and quicker to code than not. Some of using Patterns is opinion, some of it is knowledge. I know from when I was starting out, I didn't use a lot of them and mostly avoided them. I find I use them more so now but I use them only as the situation really needs it. I often find that I will use a Pattern when other developers don't/won't/can't as well. They are not easy to implement all the time and experience is often needed to make them work well. Definitely my opinion but they can be worth it if used right.
|
|
|
|
|
I would just have an "adapter" (class) for that.
Plug and play; like most everything else in the world.
"(I) am amazed to see myself here rather than there ... now rather than then".
― Blaise Pascal
|
|
|
|
|
Oh brother! Are Google’s search engine or Facebook’s social network really "essential facilities"? Can we not get the same search abilities with Bing or other search engines? Doesn't Twitter offer a social network? Doesn't Google offer a social network?
Yes, there is competition, but Google search engine or Facebook’s social network are not the only game in town. Since users prefer Google's search engine and Facebook’s social network, does not make them monopolies. These EU officials need to get their noses out of their ivory towers and look around. Expand their minds and research alternatives. What this article is showing us is that the EU will not let their people choose how to search or to network. If Google and Facebook are preferred, so be it. At least Google and Facebook are not charging us, their users, for their services. We may have to endure some adds, but that's no big deal breaker.
|
|
|
|
|
Agree. More critical I think is wiki, no real alternative available
It does not solve my Problem, but it answers my question
modified 19-Jan-21 21:04pm.
|
|
|
|
|
James Lonero wrote: At least Google and Facebook are not charging us, their users, for their services.
As (I forget who) said:
Quote: If you are not paying for it, you're not the customer; you're the product being sold
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: As (I forget who) said:
Quote: If you are not paying for it, you're not the customer; you're the product being sold
It's amazing how many people don't grasp this idea.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
